Ideologues Attacking Antiquity

Abstract:  As we sift through the media coverage of the Charlottesville event and the news cycles stemming from it, it is amazing to see the propaganda at play.  If you are not yet afraid of manufactured developments, then you may not be sufficiently prepared for the consequences to follow.  Hayek warned about these developments in his chapter, “The End of Truth,” in his Nobel prize winning book, The Road to Serfdom.  At the time of its publication, Hayek received a brutal wave of criticism from the then liberal academic establishment.  These liberals turned out to be “modern liberals” and today’s progressives (socialists in sheep’s clothing).

The media completely misses the essence of what is going on in Charlottesville, which is a symbol of the competition of visions in America—those who want to transform the idea of America and those who want to preserve it.  This Gadfly Corner article touches upon this theme.  

            IM:  I’m trying to understand why the left is so insistent upon destroying Confederate statues.

Old Gadfly:  Try to think through the motivation.

IM:  The statues represent individuals who played a critical role in advancing the goals of the Confederacy.

Old Gadfly:  Do we really understand the goals of the Confederacy?  What motivated the push for secession from the union?  The reasons are fairly complex.  To keep it simple, let’s talk about Charlottesville, Virginia and the decision to take down Lee's statue.

IM:  A white supremacist group had applied for a permit and received approval to assemble for the purpose of protesting the removal of a General Robert E. Lee statue.

Old Gadfly:  It seems as though the focus has been on the nature of the group and not on the reason for the request to assemble.

 IM:  That’s because the nature of the group, as a white supremacy group, represents a perceived assault on nonwhites.   The manufactured debacle at Charlottesville is an extension of the belief that Lee is perceived to have fought for the preservation of slavery—a human injustice—yet by today’s standards of justice.  This is the impugned motivation.  There is no movement to protest other forms of slavery in the past.  The debacle ignores an entire movement to demonize whites for the institution of slavery, even though blacks in Africa were a major part of the slave trade.  The debacle completely ignores Lee’s loyalty to the State of Virginian during a time when States exercised sovereignty consistent with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Old Gadfly:  So, you are indicating the complexity of conditions related to the American Civil War, such as the issues involved in preserving the union, State sovereignty, and the morality of slavery.

IM:  Exactly.

AM:  These arguments point to the real crime taking place.  The left wants to eliminate perceived injustices in history by eliminating statues as if this will correct the perceived injustices.  We have a completely different generation, living by different standards, judging previous generations based on today’s ideology.  How is this different from the destruction of antiquities by the members of ISIS?

Old Gadfly:  Excellent point, AM.  The world is outraged by ISIS’s destruction of antiquities.  Why is there no similar outrage over the left’s attempt to do similar things in America?

IM:  One of the groups that contributed to the violence at Charlottesville was Black Lives Matter.  A great deal of its motivation was based on the “hands up, don’t shoot” myth from the event at Ferguson, Missouri, which turned out to be a fabrication.   Yet, they are a member of the left’s ideologues that represent the left’s army bent on destroying Trump and all that he stands for.  Because Trump understands what happened and made it known in his comment about more than one party being at fault for the violence at Charlottesville, he continues to be demonized by the left.  The left, which is more consistent with ISIS in its attempt to shape history and truth, but most importantly to engage in a campaign of conquest, dominates the news cycles.  Unfortunately, Rich Higgins attempted to reveal this strategy, but was fired by Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster (a brilliant warrior, but what is his political agenda?).  Higgins’ explanation of the different levels of narratives by the media is playing out as we speak.  Check out today’s New York Times, if not all the news reports whether local or national.

Old Gadfly:  Based on my own analysis of cultural developments in our society, I could have written the exact memo that Rich Higgins wrote.  Higgins is a patriot.  His analysis is on target.  Do we have others to take his place?

AM:  They can only operate informally.  The media and deep state (Obama holdovers) are not on our side.

Old Gadfly:   We are in a political war.  As difficult as it may seem, Americans will need to pick a side.  The challenge is that many, too many, Americans will have no idea why they should pick a side.   Too many have had the luxury of living in comfort zones and have long ago lost interest in what America is all about.   Too many refer to America as a democracy without any understanding of the founders’ intent on America being a republic.  Thus, they know not the difference between a republic and a democracy.  Too many know nothing of socialism and its cause of tyranny in recent history.   Too many are at the complete mercy of a leftist media that will influence the side they take.  In the end, we are all held accountable for the side we choose.  So, Americans, choose wisely.  Democrats are the party of 19^th century slavery and 20th and 21^st century institutionalized slavery in the form of inner cities and the welfare state.   Republicans believe in the dignity of the human being (i.e., prolife) and the importance of the rule of law in a constitutional republic.  We are mortal.  God will judge for eternity.  

ISIS Is Islam

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, explain to me why the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, is considered an extremist or radical version of Islam.

IM:  Do you doubt this assertion?

Old Gadfly:  I consistently hear this characterization in the news and in casual conversations.  When I ask what makes this group extreme or radical, I typically get an outraged response such as “Islam is a religion of peace.”  When I further pulse an individual with a question such as, “can you give me authoritative examples to support the claim?” I am usually met with silence and a disgruntled facial expression.

IM:  I did a key word search of a digital version of the Qur’an (also called the Koran, as revealed by the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad, the greatest of all prophets according to Muhammad and his followers) and found the word “peace” used 49 times.

Old Gadfly:  And what did you learn from the context within which “peace” was used?

IM:  Early, in the second chapter, “The Cow” (2:11) believers of Islam are instructed:  “And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers.”  The mischief-makers are non-believers.  Frankly, the word “peace” was used throughout the Qur’an more as a “greeting” like “good morning.”  There is no explanation as to what the word peace actually means or even how to strive for it.  For example, in “The Distinction” (25.63), “believers” are told:   "And the servants of the Beneficent God are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace.”  In other words, this is a greeting from those who are believers to those who are not.

Old Gadfly:  Then, are we to infer that Islamic peace is possible only among believers of the Islamic Allah?  Yet, look at the turmoil and bloodshed in a region of the world with the greatest concentration of Islamic believers. 

AM:  Gadfly, getting back to your question about ISIS, in relation to the Qur’an and other authoritative texts such as the Hadith, I can find no contradictions or even contrary notions of what ISIS has established as an Islamic state.      

Old Gadfly:  Explain.

AM:  I can present many arguments, but let me offer just a couple.  Like IM, I did a key word search for “punishment” and, unlike the greeting nature of peace used only 49 times, punishment is used 171 times.  For example, in the fifth chapter, “The Dinner” (5:33), believers are instructed in this manner:  “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.”  This clearly explains the murders and crucifixions carried out by ISIS—acts that are congruent with Islamic doctrine.

Old Gadfly:  How about the women taken captive by ISIS?

AM:  This is my second argument.  I did another search, this time with the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement at the University of Southern California.  I looked up “marriage,” then “to slave.”  I learned that it is permissible to enslave and marry captured women, even if the women were already married before capture.  Specifically, in the Qur'an's fourth chapter, “The Women” (4:24), Islamic believers are instructed:  “And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.” 

Old Gadfly:  The Hadith may have clarified what this meant in real life.

AM:  It reinforced it.  In “The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikab),” this particular behavior is further justified:

Chapter 29: IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A CAPTIVE WOMAN AFTER SHE IS PURIFIED (OF MENSES OR DELIVERY) IN CASE SHE HAS A HUSBAND, HER MARRIAGE IS ABROGATED AFTER SHE BECOMES CAPTIVE

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).

Old Gadfly:  What is meant by “right hands possess”?

AM:  It refers to female slavery.  In the Qur’an and the Hadith, women slaves and free men are the natural order of things, ordained by Allah.  For example, under Muhammad’s direction, Muslims executed between 600 and 900 male members of a Jewish tribe known as Banu Qurayza[1] and took all the women and children as slaves.[2]  In another historical account, Muhammad took Rayhana as his slave.[3]  Rayhana was from the Jewish Banu Nadir tribe, who had married a man from the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe before it was vanquished by Muhammad.  Several accounts report that Muhammad had as many as 13 wives.   

IM:  Islamic apologists would argue that Leviticus was similarly harsh with its prescriptions for ritual, legal and moral practices.  Yet, Leviticus was written sometime in the period 538–332 BCE, nearly a millennium before Muhammad apparently served as the medium for his self-proclaimed divinely inspired teachings that became the Qur’an.  And, in between Leviticus and the verses known as the Qur’an, the New Testament appeared with a far more coherent and congruent set of teachings about love and forgiveness, such as the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew.

Old Gadfly:  What does the Qur’an say about terror?

AM:  A word search produced five passages about the relevance of terror.  For example, in the eighth chapter “The Accessions” (8:21), Muhammad said, “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Old Gadfly:  How about war?

AM:  The term “war” is used 20 times, but it is obscured by 137 “warning” entries.  For example, in the eighth chapter, “The Accessions” (8:65), The Qur’an states, “O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.”  This aggressive, coercive perspective is consistent with the actual meaning of the word Islam, which means submission.

Old Gadfly:  How about jihad?

AM:   The Qur’an does not use the word jihad, per se.  Jihad is a term that includes “fighting,” “striving,” “struggling,” and “endeavoring.”  The index for the Qur’an at the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement provides 24 instances of the use of these terms.  So, technically, those engaged in jihad, that is, terrorist acts against the enemies of Islam—especially Israel and the Western world--are very consistent with the teachings of Islam.  This may explain why for years now, especially since the loss of over 3,000 innocents on September 11, 2001 on American soil and many other terrorist activities since then, there has been no public outrage from Muslim communities, both in the Middle East and within the various Muslim conclaves embedded within Western cultures.

Old Gadfly:  How about love?

AM:  The word “love” is used 83 times.  For example, in Chapter 61, “The Ranks” (61:4), The Qur’an states, “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall.”  The prevailing notion, however, does not include believers loving others; it is used in reference to Allah—whether Allah loves or not.  This is very consistent with the notion of submission:  do as Allah commands and be loved by Allah, or disobey Allah and, not only lose his love, but expect to be punished.   Compare this with the liberating notions of the Christian New Testament, exemplified by the Son of God suffering crucifixion and death to free us from the bondage of sin.

Old Gadfly:  Now, let’s tie these concepts from the Qur’an into the justification of ISIS as an Islamic State.  Is there foundational support for such an entity, or is it a perversion of the Islamic doctrine?

IM:  As we know, Iran is an Islamic state—a theocracy based on Islam and governed by Sharia law.  Iran’s arrangement and the justification for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria are based on doctrine published in the Hadith, complementary authoritative texts (or reports).  For example, "The Book on Government (Kitab Al-Imara)," a translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 20, unambiguously states, “. . . the Islamic State is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, the end being development of a community of people who stand up for equity and justice, for rights against wrong or, to phrase it differently, for the creation of such conditions as would enable the greatest possible number of human beings to live spiritually, morally and physically in accordance with the teachings of Islam.”  Islam is intended to be universal.  There is no tolerance for other religions.  The late Samuel P. Huntington warned us about these inevitable dynamics in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order in the 1990s.  His thesis and arguments were roundly rejected by the progressive, intellectual left.

Old Gadfly:  When ISIS first emerged the leaders of this entity called themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.  The Obama Administration insists on calling the entity the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.  What can we infer from this?

AM:  The Levant primarily referred to Syria-Palestine but has more recently been used to accommodate a broader area that includes Israel.  The notion that the Obama Administration, not the head of ISIS, modified the original ISIS terminology to ISIL, combined with the recent deal with Iran, releasing somewhere between $100 and $150 billion (that can be used to further fund Hamas and Hezbollah), implies to me a concerted effort to squeeze Jews out of “the Levant.”  When the President snubbed the head of state from Israel on more than one occasion and bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, what other message could possibly be intended?

IM:  Compare the effects of these two religious perspectives:  Judeo-Christian principles brought to the modern world hospitals, universities, western-style law, and a sense of sacredness for all human life.[4]  Islam brought tribal submissiveness to a people who are mere instruments, imitating what they have been taught through Muhammad and his acolytes, in order to facilitate the establishment of a world caliphate.   Compare the relative prosperity and peace of the Western world with the chaos in the Islamic Middle East.  The current Muslim diaspora flows out of this brutal abyss.  Sadly, they escape what Islam has wrought only to spread it elsewhere as loyal servants.  Muslims do not assimilate.

AM:  The teachings of Islam appear to start with a worldview similar to that when Leviticus appeared and never modernized.  Do you find it ironic that America’s progressive, secular humanists are more wary of our Judeo-Christian teachings than they are of modern manifestations of the actual teachings of the Islamic religion? 

          IM:  There is an old Arab proverb that originated about the same time as Leviticus, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Do American progressives and universal Muslims have this much in common?  In other words, if progressives distance themselves from our Judeo-Christian teachings while tolerating and accepting Islam, they also tolerate and accept ISIS, even though ISIS and other believers are totally committed to eliminating nonbelievers.
         
         Old Gadfly:  Yet, there are many who do want peace.  The dilemma is to what degree they are prepared to evangelize a set of teachings that may be contrary to peace.  In his book, Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism, Hayek observed “mind is not a guide but a product of cultural evolution, and is based more on imitation than on insight or reason.”  Thus, the fundamental contest here is between imitation and reason.  This is our only hope to minimize Huntington’s clash between civilizations.

---

[1] Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, (Cambridge, UK:  Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 461–464.

[2] William Muir, The Life of Mahomet, Volume 3, Chapter 17, (London, UK:  Smith, Elder, & Co., 1861); p.276

[3] Maxine Rodinson, Muhammad: Prophet of Islam, (Norwalk, CT:  Easton Press, 1980), p. 213.

[4] See for example, Thomas E. Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, (Washington, D.C.:  Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005).